When it comes to the events of September 11, 2001, there are two relevant concerns.One is the mental anguish of those survivors who are now experiencing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (P.T.S.D.) in any number of its myriad forms, and who at the same time are finding little or no relief from traditional medical and psychiatric therapies.For some of those individuals, a distinctly alternative view of P.T.S.D. -- and a simple therapy which may be of enormous benefit -- is perhaps relevant and could be beneficial in dealing with the trauma.The process is similar to one used with Vietnam veterans who are a part of a large group of survivors still suffering from the aftermath of that ill-fated war.

T

he second aspect of 9-11-2001 concerns the host of conspiracy theories which have already appeared on the scene.Such theories, if deemed viable, are likely to cause further anguish in the survivors, because many of these theories have challenged the Bush Administration’s official party line of arch-enemy, Osama Bin Laden, being responsible for the events of September 11th -- along with every other dictator and government that the current administration doesn’t particularly like (and for whatever reason).

It is noteworthy, for example, that according to a June 25, 2003 report by CNN.com plans were underway to kill Osama bin Laden prior to 9-11-2001. Predator drones had spotted him as many as three times, but the Bush Administration had not made any decisions on who should carry out the mission. One wonders, on the one hand, why Osama would have been out and about on the last days before the attack if he was in fact a key player in the planning of the attacks. On the other hand, why was the administration so slow in dealing with the issue? Was it because they couldn't decide who would run the mission -- the CIA or the Pentagon? That's it?

Another more serious theory includes the plausible Saudi and Pakistani connections [Time Magazine, September 8, 2003, page 36 and July 21, 2003, page 62], in which high ranking members of both governments knew that an attack was scheduled for 9-11-2001. Another rather scary scenario is inevitably revealed when the Timeline for the events of 9-11-2001 are examined in detail. A major concern is the extent to which high ranking members of the government and defense agencies were unavailable to take action just when the highjackings were first underway. See, for example, http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm.

The problems associated with quick and dirty analyses -- particularly those designed to allay fears no matter what the facts suggest -- are numerous. Shwa has a relatively exhaustive description of all the relevant facts and despite its apparent anti-Semitic slant, its report must be given a degree of credibility. While the entire scenario is indeed "stranger than fiction", the fact that the authors believe there was complicity on the part of the Israeli government is not in and of itself anti-Semitic. The Israeli government, for example, does not speak for all Jews -- and not necessarily even those living in Israel. A challenge to the Israeli government, then, is not necessarily anti-Semitic.

A second excellent website on the subject is the Information Clearing House, where Walter E. Davis, PhD presents complete and compelling evidence for complicity at the highest levels of the American government. Dr. Davis' argument is that the various reports by different committees and agencies are woefully inadequate. For example, "The report from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is believable unless you are seriously interested in the truth. Under more careful scientific scrutiny, it does not answer some very important questions." This should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with FEMA.

The Wall Street Journal [1], meanwhile, has noted that conspiracy theories are getting an in depth hearing in Germany and other countries. Andreas Von Bulow, for example, has as his thesis: "The U.S. government staged the Sept.11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington to justify wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a tentative theory, he admits, based mostly on his doubt that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist group launched the attacks. 'That's simply something that is 99% false.'"

One might be tempted to ignore such theories on the basis that they are from some nut or crackpot out to make a name for himself -- and probably should be treated by a specialist in Psychoceramics (the study of crackpots). Mr. Bulow, however, is a former German cabinet minister, and his book was published by one of the "country's most prestigious publishing houses." Simultaneously, other German authors and broadcasters are making similar claims. As Mr. Bulow said, "If we are being asked to participate in a new world war that's going to last years, then I expect that the cause of [the Sept. 11 attacks] be explained in the minutest detail." [1]

One of the more incriminating and recent challenges concerning a Bush Administration complicity comes from Michael C. Ruppert ("from the wilderness.com") who goes far beyond the LIHOP ("Let It Happen On Purpose" suggestion) to the charge that the Vice President of the United State, Richard Cheney, orchestrated and controlled any possible response by the U.S. defensive agencies to the airplane hijackings -- even to the point of ensuring that plans were made ahead of time to prevent their being available to respond in sufficient time to make a difference. In effect, Ruppert's charge is that Dick Cheney (and supposedly others) aided and abetted the hijackers in their murderous plans. Mr. Ruppert is not alone in making such charges.

Such a discussion is obviously somewhat extreme. But in Mr. Ruppert's address to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (August 31, 2004) -- and in his forthcoming book -- the investigative journalist makes an extremely credible and intelligible case. The complete address is included on his website, and is ABSOLUTELY MUST READING FOR ANYONE who thinks of themselves as moderately intelligent or responsible for avoiding being labeled "willfully ignorant". If you don't read this with an open mind, you really shouldn't be voting in the coming election. (And if you're a citizen of Tasmania, you probably shouldn't be voting in the American election either.)

Succinctly, Mr. Ruppert's argument comes down to this:

1) The world's oil reserves are now peaking, and hereafter we can expect to pay ever increasing prices for rapidly diminishing reserves. Furthermore, any country without access to oil is in for some serious economic dislocations and/or instability.

2) The Dominionism Neo-Conservatives in the Bush Administration --in their quest to ensure the United States, England, and Israel have access and control of oil and the pipelines between oil fields and the US Navy-controlled high seas -- staged the 9-11-2001 horror in order to justify invading and attacking both Iraq and Afghanistan (the latter which lies between the oil-rich Caspian Sea and those friendlier nations adjacent to the sea). Saudi Arabia, the obvious heavy in the selection of suicide terrorists was spared an invasion by virtue of the fact that they are already in Bush's camp. [There is also the possibility of an invasion of Iran shortly after the election if Bush wins. Kerry has already charged that Bush is delaying calling up yet more National Guard troops until after the election.]

3) Vice-President Dick Cheney staged and orchestrated military exercises which confused and distracted any possible response which might have prevented the hijacked airplanes from reaching their target, and furthermore was in Command Central in order to thwart any rational response to the hijackings.

4) The so-called 9-11 Commission was a joke in that testimonies were ignored and new timelines inserted to make the Commission's case for non-involvement by the Bush Administration officials. Furthermore the Commission was made up of the same neo-conservatives who were responsible for the disaster in the first place. At least one honest member resigned in protest at the Commission's proceedings.

Mr. Ruppert's thesis is thus in accord with Mr. Bulow, Dr. Davis, and so forth and so on. Much more to the point is the fact(s) that their charges, evidence, and logical analyses are much more credible than anyone in the Bush Administration or their supporters in the Congress and elsewhere have presented as an alternative.

What are we to make of this? First of all, we need to read the referenced websites and press reports. We might then make conclusions as to their credibility. In doing so, we also need to consider the ingredients of any case against an accused. These necessary prerequisites include means, opportunity, and motive. The means is pretty clear in that the U.S. government is enormously powerful and includes many members who are devilishly clever. As Joe Klein [2] has said in connection with the election and simultaneous libel against John Kerry, "There are all sorts of theories for Bush's recent success. The Republicans are brilliant and brazen demolition experts. The Democrats play hardball at the peewee-league level."

As for opportunity, there are numerous very willing and very enthusiastic individuals who are willing to go for the seventy virgins in the afterlife by martyring themselves in a blow against the allegedly Satanic U. S. Government. Again the resources of the United States seems more than sufficient to provide both means and opportunity.

If the means and opportunity are clear, then what is the motive? Greed, oil, money, status, and/or power just for the sake of power? Quite possibly, any or all of these is sufficient to motivate the individuals involved. But there is perhaps a more fundamental reason. It is not beyond belief that Ashcroft, Bush, Chency, [the ABCs of the Axes of Evil], Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al -- the neo-conservative Dominionists -- are acting for reasons that to them are entirely laudable and necessary. Each and everyone of them may see themselves as American patriots in the best sense of the word.

Is there a possible justification for the actions of the ranking members of the Bush Administration -- which at the very least, constitutes aiding and abeting terrorists to commit the horror of 9-11-2001? if a 'yes' sounds unbelievably crazy, bear with me for just a moment.

What might be construed as treasonable activity in the extreme by any reasoning individual may actually constitute deeds which were undertaken by people who genuinely believed they were doing the right thing. We're not even talking about greed and just getting rich -- which may be part of it (certainly Dick Cheney's forte). But greed is not the whole story. We're talking about a President of the United States, his closest advisors and high-ranking members of the government -- along with the cooperation of the governments of England and Israel -- taking an extreme course of action in order to preserve his (and their) countrys' future strength and prosperity.

The fact these individuals believe that the ends justifies the means -- no matter how horrific the means -- is simply their belief in Dominionism and the concept that they are somehow immune to the morals and ethics of lesser beings. They may not be particularly religious, but are more than willing to use religion as a tool in their personal quest. In a dog eat dog world, the Bushites come off sounding like just the thing many people in the United States and elsewhere want -- to be in the school yard with the toughest, meanest bully as your personal friend (or paid protector).

Mr. Ruppert's thesis, for example, -- that the world is facing the end of the oil age and the overriding concern is with ever diminishing oil supplies -- is that it behooves the biggest kid of the block -- i.e. the U.S.A. -- to step in and be sure it and its closest friends (i.e. England and Israel) have primary access to the black gold which fuels their economies. If this must be done by a force of arms, fine. If this involves the loss of thousands of lives, okay. Just as long as the U.S.A. can continue to fuel their Hummers and SUVs at a reasonable cost. And from a political viewpoint, doing what makes the voting citizenry happy -- even if that same citizenry would be horrified at the chosen means to an end. In this case, the launching of an invasion against any country which figures prominently into the oil equation is entirely justified. Iran, please take note.

A curious aside is that Mr. Ruppert's speech was to the Commonwealth Club -- a group composed of Elitists -- elitists in the strongest sense of the word. These are the powers that be. These are also the people -- as Michael Moore so cleverly reported in his movie, Fahrenheit 911 -- who President Bush thinks of as "his base". They represent the people who President Bush will always want to keep on his side, no matter what.

Now one might be tempted to think that these movers and shakers might be just a tad upset at the revelations Mr. Ruppert and others have foisted upon them. But then again, perhaps they don't care. They may even agree with the Bush-Cheney plan to invade whoever and whenever there is oil to be controlled and brought home. The Elitists, for example, may have no compunction about using American troops as just so much cannon-fodder in order to maintain their status. It's not like a member of the Elite need actually find themselves in harm's way by joining a fighting unit [just as President Bush has so dramatically the potential for avoiding any semblance of actual military service]. After all, it is very likely that the most important thing to any member of the true elite is to remain a member of the true elite. How better to do this than ignore Mr. Ruppert's claim that the basic problem is that our unlimited economic system is diametrically opposed to limited resources. As long as one has the money to pay for declining resources, there is no real problem.

The more fundamental moral and ethical difficulty is that the Bush Doctrine of taking whatever will make America stronger -- and at whatever cost to those "others" who are the taken from (not to mention the "others" of the U. S. military and its civilian contractors) -- is that it assumes that these "others" are different, somehow inferior, and more likely to be equated with the domestic animals one uses for work and sport. The Bush Doctrine supercedes any possibility of living a moral, ethical life and assumes that business being business, it's better to steal from the other guy than reduce one's own standard of living.

A basic question is that given the premise that the Bushites may have staged, aided and abetted the 9-11-2001 disastor, how many less-than-elite members of the American public (as well as anyone else who hopes to ride the US coattails to the Land of Oil) would be willing to overlook the means by which the end is being achieved.

To this end, a poll is being conducted, which will establish the relative merits of nine different responses to the details of this webpage. The 9 responses are detailed at Poll 911, and consist briefly of:

Not Convinced:

1) Denial: The idea of any complicity by the Bush Administration in the attacks of 9-11-2001 is unthinkable and ludicrous.

2) Qualified Denial: The idea of any complicity by the Bushites -- while being feasible in a Machiavellian atmosphere -- is still not acceptable as being the truth.

3) Jury Still Out: The idea of complicity is believable, but there is insufficient evidence (even after reading the above links with an open mind) to conclude that there was indeed conspiracy by high ranking American officials.

Preponderance of Evidence -- The evidence is sufficient to bring about a verdict against the Bushites on the basis of the preponderance of evidence (which may include circumstantial evidence). This leads to the following:

4) Comfortable: The Bushites actions were probably necessary and in that case acceptable in order to maintain the current standard of living in the USA and in nations friendly to the nation.

5) Quandary: It may be true, but there seems no way to do anything about it.

6) Activist: It may be true, and we need to first better understand what has happened, and then as necessary do something about it.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt -- The evidence is sufficient to bring about a verdict against the Bushites as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This leads to:

7) Elitist: Grow up! It's the way of the world, and as long as it benefits us, leave it be.

8) Bewildered: We may be convinced, but we still can't figure out what to do about it.

9) Anarchist: It's time to bring the perpetrators to justice and we're going to do everything we can to do just that!

Make your vote count! Go to and participate in Poll 911. It's just chance to vote without the specter of hanging chad, disenfranchisement, and so forth and so on.

In the interim, for those in the Quandary and Bewildered categories, there are the legal actions in progress. Ramsey Clark for example has allegedly launched an official indictment of Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Franks, Tenet, Bremer, et al. Separately, various 911 victims have filed RICO Case lawsuits, while others are lobbying for more answers and simultaneously passing on the filing claims for the Feinberg Fund. The New York Press, for example, reports that while 2,851 claims have been filed for relief -- which requires signing off on any future litigation against the government -- 125 claims remain outstanding. These people appear to want answers to what really happened before giving away their rights to take future actions against any possible wrongdoers.

These litigants would appear to have ample justification if only because of the serious failures on the part of the government to act. There is, for example, the report in the LA times alleging that "Rumsfeld and Bush Failed Us on Sept. 11". This is probably not a big surprise to many people.

********************************************

It is likely that what happened on that horrific day will not be revealed for some time to come.But there should be at least an earnest attempt to delve into the evidence, keeping an open mind as to the culprits, and ultimately allowing the true circumstances and reality of what happened lead us to the bad guys (or gals) who actually perpetrated this attack upon the American Republic, liberty in general, and any and all foreign countries with access to oil.Every lead should be considered, every possibility investigated, and every reasonable alternative to the party line researched thoroughly.

Any such investigation must consider the timeline of 9-11-2001 events, and include complete candor by the Bush Administration.But as Time Magazine [3 February 2003] noted, “One panelist, Tim Roemer, a Democrat who just retired from Congress, complained in a statement he issued last month as a member of the House-Senate panel that the congressional probe suffered because such officials as Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Condoleezza Rice ‘were not questioned directly about issues related to the Sept. 11 attacks.’A Rumsfeld spokesman refused to ‘speculate on what participation will be extended’ to the commission.”

The official 9/11 Probe was never encouraging, of course. $3 million had originally been allocated to the effort, while its chairman, Thomas Kean, was asking for $12 to $15 million. All of this, of course, is far less than the $50 million allocated for the space-shuttle catastrophe probe! [Time Magazine, March 10, 2003, page 16] And considering the political leanings of most of the members of the commission, there was never any real hope for anything of real substance to arise from the undertaking.

One example of the potentially hopeless nature of the 9-11 Commission's task is the satirical view of Truthout.org. Styled as the Transcript of Bush/Cheney Testimony Before 9/11 Commission, it provides a believable -- which is the scary part -- story of what might be happening at the highest level of government.

[Actually, the really scary part is General Norman Schwartzkopf's statement regarding forgiveness for the 9-11 perpetrators: "I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting." This Neanderthal, grotesque view is similar to one used in the Albigensian Crusade -- or perhaps more accurately, the Albigensian Massacre. When asked about sparing the innocent and how to identify them, the Pope's emissary replied, "Kill them all; let God sort them out." So when the actual terrorists do arrive on your door step, assume they will be using the same logic and compassion that General Norman Black Head has used.

It cannot be stated or emphasized too strongly that freedoms and rights given up in times of crisis seldom if ever return to their full strength after the crisis subsides.It is one thing to “circle the wagons” when danger threatens.It is quite another to never again resume the journey, and instead build structure upon structure at the site of the first attack, and thereafter expend all of one’s energies in the simple maintenance of the structure (see the discussion on Entropy).I.e. it’s okay to react to a threat, but not to become reactionary to the point of immobility.

Yet another theory -- which is gaining considerably backing and which has the potential for considerably more credibility -- is described in an essay by Michael Meacher, a member of the British Parliament and Environmental Minister from May 1997 until June 2003. This ranking member of the British government cannot be so easily dismissed as many might wish. His essay entitled "This War on Terrorism is Bogus" is included herein (as a separate webpage) in its entirety (and as received via e-mail on 9/6/03). It's worth taking the time to read! Meanwhile, for an American perspective, William Rivers Pitt, editor of truthout, has written his similar views in "I Believe." This is also a must read!

And while you're at it, keep in mind that Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political advisor made a special effort to ensure that the G.O.P. presidential convention for 2004 would be held in New York City in order "to capitalize on the memory of 9/11." Rove even made sure that the convention was held late in the political season in order for the kickoff of the President's campaign "to coincide with the two-year anniversary of the tragedy." [Time Magazine, May 5, 2003, page 35] Have these people no shame? [Based on the events of the intervening year between updates, obviously not.]

Of course, they may still represent a substantial majority. As of late 2003, they have managed to keep 7 of 10 Americans believing that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9-11 attacks, even though there has never been any proof of a link between the two. This understandably caused a reaction from the Washington Post in an article by Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane, entitled "Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds." One can only marvel at the willful ignorance of so many people.

Another extremely responsible and insightful observer is Stratfor.com.A world observer and think tank, with proven intelligence and analysis, Stratfor has developed a well-earned reputation for excellent work.Thus, it is perhaps sufficient, for the present, to leave the subject of 9-11-2001 with a Stratfor.com report which originated very quickly after the event.The report is included here in its entirety.

As of this moment, what is clear is that a substantial number of civilian aircraft were hijacked this morning by pilots with sufficient ability to maneuver those multi-engine aircraft into collisions with major buildings.The flights originated at a number of airports. Each incident required the presence of at least one and probably more hijackers, each prepared to die in the attack.

Mounting an attack of this sort is not simple.In the case of the World Trade Center, the collapse of the towers indicates massive delayed explosions.This means either the planes were loaded with explosives or that massive explosive charges were planted in the buildings to go off later.This is supposition, but a secondary explosion is a necessary factor for explaining the collapse. [emphasis added]

This means many individuals had to be involved in the operation.There had to be a coordinated effort spanning several continents, timed to occur at roughly the same time. At best guess, dozens of people had to be involved.Messages had to flow, coded or otherwise.Yet no human intelligence sources appear to have been among or near the conspirators.No significant messages were intercepted or decoded.

For U.S. intelligence to have missed an operation of this magnitude indicates one of two things.First, the competence of U.S. intelligence is overrated or the willingness of policymakers to heed warnings has declined.In either case, the system is badly broken. Alternatively, the sophistication of terrorist counter-intelligence has improved to such an extent that the prior level of expertise bought to bear is simply no longer sufficient.

Whether we are facing a decline in U.S. intelligence capability or an increase in counter-intelligence blocking the United States, Sept. 11, 2001, will go down as one of the majorintelligence failures in U.S. history.

Before leaving this incredible subject, it is worthwhile to take the incredibility into one higher level. Dean Radin, in the IONS Noetic Sciences Review [3] has discussed the possibility of a Global Consciousness, and one which can be evaluated in part by the use of Random Number Generators to take advantage of the quantum physics which describes a 'nonlocal entanglement'. In other words, populations as a whole or even nature itself may be influenced in mind-boggling ways by dramatic events in the world.

“One possibility is that the act of observation induces biases in the underlying probabilities of random events. The data also indicate that mind-matter interaction effects do not appear to be bound by the ordinary constraints of time and space.” “It seems increasingly likely that ordered mind is somehow reflected in the physical world.”

Bell curves are routinely developed by such things as Random Number Generators. “The mind-matter interaction hypothesis is formally tested by examining whether RNG outputs deviate from chance expectations from just before an event of widespread interest to a few hours afterwards (which ensures that the data examined fully cover the event of interest.”

“Over a period of eight hours, starting about two hours before the first jet hit the World Trade Center tower, the bell curve became too ‘flat' (hinting at the possibility of a grand premonition), and then rebounded to become too ‘thin', somewhat analogous to how a physical bell acts when hit hard by a mallet. The magnitude of the bell curve's ‘ring' on this day was larger than that observed on any other day in the four-year...” database.

Also…”On the evening of September 11, 2002 , the New York lottery drew the sequence 9-1-1 .” While this sequence had occurred five times in the previous 5,000 drawings (the chance probability of any given three number sequence being 1 in 1,000), this would not have implied anything, except it only occurred in New York, and not other lotteries. But the apparent affect of the preoccupation with the anniversary date… ?

“For a week before September 11, 2002 , the winds near New York City were calm, averaging about five miles per hour. On September 11 around 9 AM , the winds in the bay near Long Island suddenly shot up to over 45 miles per hour.” In New York City as well as Dulles Airport near Washington, DC, “both locations experienced a sharp change in both barometric pressure and wind speed, starting around 9 AM on September 11, 2002 .” “There was no rain that day; just a clear blue sky and a wind that came out of nowhere.”

Go figure.

**************

For further reading, a

conspiracy-oriented compilation of numerous articles on 9-11-2001 is available at: